Shri Virendra Singh Rajput vs Union Of India & Others
2010 Latest Caselaw 4914 Del

17 & 18
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                   Date of Decision : 25th October, 2010

%
                        +      W.P.(C) 2427/2010


       SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH RAJPUT       ..... Petitioner
                     Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.

                      versus

       UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS          ..... Respondents
                      Through : Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj and
                                Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advs.


                        +      W.P.(C) 2433/2010


       SHRI RAJESH KUMAR                  ..... Petitioner
                     Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.

                      versus

       UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS           ..... Respondents
                      Through : Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj and
                                Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Advs.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may                      NO
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?                     NO

3.      Whether the judgment should be                             NO
        reported in the Digest?


GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. Virendra Singh Rajput and Rajesh Kumar have assailed

the action of the respondents in denying them the

consideration for promotion from the post of Sub-Inspector to

Inspector with the Central Reserve Police Force ('CRPF'

hereafter) by way of the present writ petitions. The petitioners

were not granted promotion on the ground that the they did

not fulfill the mandatory requirement of two years field service

(Battalion duty).

The petitioners are seeking a mandamus to the

respondents to waive the said condition and consider them for

such promotion.

2. In support of the writ petitions, reliance has been placed

by the petitioners on the judgment dated 27th October, 2009

rendered in WP(C)No.21900/2005 Ashok Kumar vs. Union

of India and Ors. as well as connected writ petitions which

raise an identical issue in the context of personnel who were

employed by the Border Security Force as well as the Central

Reserve Police Force.

3. Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents has handed over a copy of a signal dated 26th

August, 2010 which we have taken on record whereby the

respondents have been informed that no counter affidavit is

required to be filed in the instant writ petitions for the reason

that the petitioners would be covered by the aforenoticed

judicial precedent.

4. Just as in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. Union of India

(Supra), there is no dispute herein also to the contention of the

petitioners that they were not responsible in any manner for

their postings. We find force in the submission of the

petitioners that it was for the respondents to have taken

appropriate steps for issuing the posting orders to duty

battalions in case such service was to be considered essential

for promotions.

5. Having failed to do so, the petitioners cannot be denied

promotion for the reason that they have not served in the field

positions.

6. The petitioners have also drawn our attention to the

power available with the competent authority under the rules

for relaxing/waiving the requirement of two years service in the

duty battalion. Such power has been exercised and the

condition already relaxed in respect of the identically situated

persons by the respondents.

In view of the above, it is directed as follows:-

(i) The decision of the Central Government declining to

relax the eligibility condition of two years service in

duty battalion for promotion of the petitioners to the

post of Inspector under the CRPF shall stand

quashed.

(ii) A direction is issued to the Central Government to

reconsider the case of the petitioners, after the

aforenoticed relaxation, and to pass appropriate

orders, if the decision is taken in their favour, for

promotion with effect from the date persons

immediately junior to the petitioners were

promoted. In such eventuality, the petitioners

would be entitled to all consequential benefits

including seniority, pay fixation and arrears of pay.

(iv) The case of the petitioners shall be forwarded by the

competent authority to the Ministry of Home Affairs

positively within a period of four weeks from today.

The consideration by the Ministry of Home Affairs

shall be communicated to the petitioners within

eight weeks thereafter.

These writ petitions are allowed in the above terms.

Dasti under signature of court master.

GITA MITTAL, J

J.R. MIDHA, J OCTOBER 25, 2010 mk